“I’m so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things,” the prattling pundit said on air Tuesday while trying to tie President Obama’s re-election to his handling of the hurricane.

Matthews’ galling gaffe visibly shocked co-anchor Rachel Maddow, prompting him to try to reel it back, to no avail.

“No, politically, I should say — not in terms of hurting people,” Matthews, 66, blubbered. “The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.”

Posted by sinverguenza on 11/10/2012 1:52:00 AM (view original):bro, save it for some seattle coffeehouse where everybody wears berets. you should have realized 2 things already. they are as follows:

1: you've been defeated in the debate. when you feel it's necessary to write a novel with each post, you're probably saying so little of substance that you have to drag it out for 8 years as a ploy.

2: even if you had held your own in this debate, nobody would give a damn. you're never going to convince rich people that they owe more than the 50% they're already wasting in taxes every year, just as i'm never going to convince you to get a vassectomy so that the world need not have any little bistizas guzzling anymore milk from the proverbial communal teet.

“I’m so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things,” the prattling pundit said on air Tuesday while trying to tie President Obama’s re-election to his handling of the hurricane.

Matthews’ galling gaffe visibly shocked co-anchor Rachel Maddow, prompting him to try to reel it back, to no avail.

“No, politically, I should say — not in terms of hurting people,” Matthews, 66, blubbered. “The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.”

sinver...as I said in another thread...Mathews comments were despicable and wrong. Which does not change the fact that Conservatives heard only what they wanted to hear. They disregarded information that was contrary to what they believed. Anthropomorphic Climate Change, presidential polling data, it doesn't matter. I am reminded of the old saying "If the facts don't support my theory, then the facts must be wrong."

Posted by sinverguenza on 11/10/2012 1:52:00 AM (view original):bro, save it for some seattle coffeehouse where everybody wears berets. you should have realized 2 things already. they are as follows:

1: you've been defeated in the debate. when you feel it's necessary to write a novel with each post, you're probably saying so little of substance that you have to drag it out for 8 years as a ploy.

2: even if you had held your own in this debate, nobody would give a damn. you're never going to convince rich people that they owe more than the 50% they're already wasting in taxes every year, just as i'm never going to convince you to get a vassectomy so that the world need not have any little bistizas guzzling anymore milk from the proverbial communal teet.

Heh.

I like this guy.

Oh, btw, I do agree with your post here...even though I seldom see berets in Seattle coffeehouses.

“I’m so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things,” the prattling pundit said on air Tuesday while trying to tie President Obama’s re-election to his handling of the hurricane.

Matthews’ galling gaffe visibly shocked co-anchor Rachel Maddow, prompting him to try to reel it back, to no avail.

“No, politically, I should say — not in terms of hurting people,” Matthews, 66, blubbered. “The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.”

sinver...as I said in another thread...Mathews comments were despicable and wrong. Which does not change the fact that Conservatives heard only what they wanted to hear. They disregarded information that was contrary to what they believed. Anthropomorphic Climate Change, presidential polling data, it doesn't matter. I am reminded of the old saying "If the facts don't support my theory, then the facts must be wrong."

I admitted that Romney made mistkes in the campaign.

That being said we almost beat a liked sitting President. We were way behind after the primary battle and we almost got there.

Global warming is still a winning issue for us. Other issues like immigration might be a problem.

Posted by seamar_116 on 11/11/2012 5:16:00 PM (view original):<<Global warming is still a winning issue for us. Other issues like immigration might be a problem.>>

pray tell, how is Global Warming a "winning issue" for us? You are as stupid as Mathews, when you say things like that.

No idea what kind of nonsense that swamp is trying to sell this time, but while I agree that global warming/climate change is a real and naturally occurring, cyclical phenomenon, there is little to no credible evidence that can support how much impact humans have had upon it.

That said, I'm personally all in favor of clean and renewable energy as a priority for the U.S. (and the world). Not because it will make much of a difference on the environment (it won't), but because it makes sense to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels (there's only so much oil to go around, and we're using it far faster than it can be replenished).

you've been defeated in the debate. when you feel it's necessary to write a novel with each post, you're probably saying so little of substance that you have to drag it out for 8 years as a ploy.

There is no ploy here, at least not from me. The fact of the matter is I've got a great deal of substance to my arguments, which is why some people are becoming flustered trying to argue against it. It's not "necessary to write a novel"; I'm merely addressing what people have to say.

even if you had held your own in this debate, nobody would give a damn. you're never going to convince rich people that they owe more than the 50% they're already wasting in taxes every year, just as i'm never going to convince you to get a vassectomy so that the world need not have any little bistizas guzzling anymore milk from the proverbial communal teet.

I've more than held my own in this debate - I've been dominant. You're simply denying this without a single shred of evidence because it's easier to do than to actually try to argue what you believe.

Also, rich people don't pay 50 percent in taxes - not even close (look at Romney as a chief example). That right there shows how little you know what you're talking about.

As for your other comments, attempts at insults are a solid "ploy" as you call it to distract from the fact that you have nothing of substance to say. So unless you want to make an actual argument, you're the last person who can say how anyone is doing in a debate.

Heh. I like this guy.

So this is MikeT23's other user name. What a shock that he would agree with this guy who brings the same sort of nothing to a debate then declares victory by hurling childish insults. Both attempts are equally pathetic.

People like you have two choices: Stop trying to claim victory through insults and actually provide something of substance (I seriously doubt you'll do this) or give up and wait for someone else to do it for you. Anything else is just a waste of time.